Did Russia Just Threaten Turkey With Nuclear Weapons?

[Note by the Saker: I do not believe that Russia has made such a threat and I will post my reasons for this in the next 24 hours. However, I might be wrong and Mercouris and Perry right, I therefore feel like I should post this analysis]

Reports say a source close to Putin claims Russia warned Erdogan of readiness to use tactical nuclear weapons to defend Russian strike force in Syria from Turkish attack

“A source close to Russian President Vladimir Putin told me that the Russians have warned Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan that Moscow is prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons if necessary to save their troops in the face of a Turkish-Saudi onslaught.

Since Turkey is a member of NATO, any such conflict could quickly escalate into a full-scale nuclear confrontation.”

Generally I would be skeptical of such a story from an anonymous source. However Parry is a journalist of the highest reliability and integrity so there can be no doubt he actually has been told this by a real source.

Of course it is possible the source is making the story up, or that he is not as close to Putin as Parry believes.

If a warning really was given it might have been given either on that day or possibly on the day after, to coincide with the military exercises whose meaning in that case would not be lost on either the US or the Turks.

The meeting of the Security Council (whose importance I discussed here) would in that case have been convened to discuss and authorise it.

Both the Turks and the Russians would surely have informed the US of such a warning. It would be entirely understandable in that case that the US President would want to discuss it with the Russian President. In fact it would be astonishing if he did not want to.

Neither side would want to make the warning public – something which would escalate the crisis to stratospheric levels – and each would want to concoct a cover story to hide what was really discussed, which given the circumstances and the urgency they might be unlikely to coordinate with each other. That might explain why the accounts of the conversation differ so much.

Against that it must be said that it is by no means unusual for Russian and Western governments to publish radically different accounts of conversations Russian and Western leaders have with each other.

All this it should be stressed is speculation, though as is apparent it is consistent with some of the diplomatic and military moves.

If such a warning really was given it would not be the first time the US or Russia have threatened to use nuclear weapons.

The US for example warned Saddam Hussein in 1990 that it was ready to retaliate with nuclear weapons if he used chemical weapons against their troops in the First Gulf War.

However a threat to use nuclear weapons is one that is never made lightly. If it really was made it shows how fraught the situation in Syria has become.

If the Russians really did make such a threat then it would be a further reason why the US and its European allies would be urging Erdogan to act with restraint, and would be counselling him against plunging into a war with the Russians in Syria.

I had already guessed this was the case (see here and here) and in the same article in which he reports the Russian threat Parry discusses this issue extensively.

“The US is seeking to rein in its allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia from military action in Syria if a ceasefire planned for today in the bloody civil war fails.

Despite mounting regional frustration over Washington’s allegedly passive stance on the five-year-old conflict the Obama administration and other western powers are worried that direct military interventions could lead to an escalation of the conflict and a dangerous clash with Russia.

“Are they going to deploy troops there? Not if we can help it,” said one senior Nato diplomat.””

Each day now provides further news of advances by the Syrian army and its allies in northern Syria.

The very latest information is that the last major rebel held town in Latakia province has been recaptured by the Syrian army, and that the Syrian army is just a few kilometres away from the city of Idlib.

Slowly but surely the trap around the jihadi rebels in Aleppo is closing.

Meanwhile – whether because of warnings from Moscow or Washington or for some other reason – the Turks and the Saudis have so far not matched their rhetoric with action.

The much discussed Saudi aircraft deployment to the US airbase at Incirlik has turned out to be much smaller than initially reported, and may not actually have taken place.

Turkish action so far has been limited to cross-border shelling of Kurdish forces near Azaz and demands the Kurds stay away from Azaz, which is near the Turkish border and which the Turks say they want to make part of a buffer zone.

Interestingly the Western powers seem reluctant to endorse Turkey’s claims the Kurds of Iraq and Syria – as opposed to the Kurds of Turkey – were behind Wednesday’s terrorist attack on a military convoy in Ankara (see this discussion here), whilst Turkey’s response to the attack was to bomb Kurdish targets in Iraq rather than in Syria.

The situation is still very tense and it is premature to say that the crisis – if one exists – is past.

Whether because of Russian threats to use nuclear weapons or because of calls of restraint from the West and possibly from his own military or for some other reason, the signs for the moment however point to Erdogan backing off.

With every day that passes without a Turkish ground invasion the prospects of it happening grow less. The next few weeks should decide the issue.

The Essential Saker: from the trenches of the emerging multipolar world

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to get more info on formatting

(1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.

(2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.

(3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:

a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more quickly.

and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in Name of your link

(4)No need to use this special character in between paragraphs:&nbsp;You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated.The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will look like before you send it.

(5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.

I’ll repeat my speculation from before. Dabiq is the setup for a nuclear false flag, blamed on Russia, allowing for the implementation of further repressions at home and/or empowering the neocon/NATO clique to grab power from the ‘Anglo’ clique working with Russia behind the scenes.

Kissinger is the Anglo bag boy, coordinating strategies. The Bush clan stands behind efforts to unseat the Clintonite war party.

Trump may be holding court for a Jeb Bush leap into the Presidency or Vice Presidency on the Cheney template. Sanders ‘surprising’ popularity may be the result of behind the scenes efforts to weaken Clinton.

Why did the hegemon behave so stupidly? Is there no long-term planning? Are Chinese and Russians superior beings: the only ones who can think beyond five years?

Why hollow out the manufacturing/industrial base and transfer it to rival military power, China?

Why transfer sensitive technologies with military application to rival military power, China?

Why allow a 25+ year anti-ship missile “gap” to develop in favour of the hobbled, on-her-knees defeated military rival, Russia (and also with China) ??? The same question applies to the surface-to-air missile technologies.

Why (allegedly) manipulate the price of gold to keep your debt-based currencies afloat just a little bit longer, and in the process deliver yet more of your nation’s real, tangible wealth to your military rivals – and now also your economic rivals – Russia, India and China?

What is under Yamantau Mountain, and why doesn’t the West know about it, considering we allegedly “won” the Cold War and were in total control of Russia during the 1990s decade, if the prevailing alternative media narrative is to be believed? Also, see the Underground Great Wall of China.

Why, why why? There are many more “whys” where those came from.

Rockefeller, Rothschild, Kissinger and their less-publicised friends are all dummies? Victims of psychopathic hubris and tunnel vision is one theory; i.e. the greedy predators who – operating on base animal instinct alone – consumed all the natural resources on the island and must now consume each other, or starve. A different species, more well adapted to the change in the environment (a change that the greedy predators themselves brought about), will now replace them as top predator.

Another theory is…?

We must alert the world to the danger of a nuclear war because a nuclear war – at least a *limited* nuclear war – may be part of the script. For the time being, the US Congress, the Senate and the UK Parliament are all currently in recess. This is a dangerous time.

Every race and ethnicity speaks or has spoken as described at some point in time. If you do not acknowledge that fact then you are completely ill informed when it comes to history. However, it suprises me not. Since racism is present in many forms.

That’s true, Charles. But right now there is an attempt here to counteract the AZ Empire faction, by raising awareness of its pathological tendency to almost always lie. Which of course includes most of the utterances of the non-white Obomber, and, of course, (for racial exception example) the lie about “yellow cake uranium” that Saddam allegedly obtained from Niger https://youtu.be/2ZTLmOoPzjs according to non-white Gen Colin Powell. Add in Condi Rice and Susan Rice to the non-white liars list.

So Eimar’s concern is Empire lies, and his quote is a poetic utterance attributed to early native Americans who did notice a similarity between snakes’ tongues and the tongues of many of those early white settlers, who spoke to deceive, all too often. Some here would say “always”, but I think that is extreme.

Sophistry through legal means is a preferred tactic – usually by wording agreements in ‘flexible’ terms. That’s why they have so many lawyers. Much of American law is functionally corrupt – i.e. worded for maximum ‘
flexibility’. That’s deliberate – gives the authors future opportunities to obtain by stealth what they cannot obtain directly.

Thank you for your completely unecessary hisstory lesson, Ted. I also must thank you for making the assumption I am totally ignorant concerning my countries history; especially regarding the europeans treatment of its native peoples. I really needed you to inform me about it. Oh I also must give you thanks for informing me about the fact that lies were used to justify the destruction of the Iraqi nation and the genocide committed upon its people. What would I do without guys like you, Ted? Tex, one more thing, did anywhere in my comment did I mention it pertained to whites only? Thanks for pointing out that Barry and Suzi were non whites as well. What a help you’ve been

While the are undoubtedly stupid people without a moral compass in the rank and file (think Delores Umbridge from the Harry Potter series), the people holding the levers of power (the McGeorge Bundy’s of this world) should not be underestimated.
Given, the stakes, a further escalation involving Turkey might not be a disaster for the US elites. In the turmoil, might not the borders in the Levant still be redrawn? Would it not be better for Gulf regimes to be threatened by Russian aggression rather than collapse on their own accord?

Are you kidding? In what way does any of this nightmare US foreign policy has created benefit Americans? The leadership of the US is brutal, barbaric, blood-thirsty … AND stupid. You are making false accusations against Americans like myself, who abhor US wars and killing, and cannot believe the stupidity of anyone who would conduct such wars! Donald Trump is against US intervention in foreign conflicts. That is the best policy for correcting this horrific chaos the US has created through its interventionist operations. I suggest you support Donald Trump if you want a better world. And please don’t accuse Americans without understanding how we feel.

That is behavior of an America that loves war and revels in bloodletting like a serial killer on a murder spree.

Americans have no problem with war–as long as it doesn’t cost THEMSELVES too much in blood and treasure and they believe they can benefit from a successul American aggression.

And American foreign policy is about maintaining American geopolitical dominance of the world–a dominance that is the basis of the parasitic US economy and way of life.

In particular, it means maintaining the American Petro Dollar as the world’s only reserve currency, which in turn allows Americans to live beyond their means indefinitely, sucking in enormous amounts of goods and services from the world in exchange for what should be worthless toilet paper (the US Greenback).

As for your pimping of Donald Rump as some kind of opponent of “intervention,” your attempts at whoring for the Donald are pathetic.

An excellent, hard-hitting, and highly perceptive submission by Anonymous. Still, my take is that the average Pindo is indeed unbelievably stupid in addition to being violently reactionary and chauvinistic. Needless to say, this judgement applies to the hilt with regard to Pindostani politicos — they know what can be sold and what cannot — and the sponsors backing them reinforce this degeneracy further still. Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, George Bush — to the peoples resisting Western imperialism they are one and the same, possibly distinguishable by differing levels of mental insanity but ultimately vile and evil all along the line.

Hello, Anonymous Feb 20 6:28 am: No this is untrue. Not all Americans are hateful pro-war apologists (though many are brainwashed by the media). Consider Paul Craig Roberts, Ron Paul, Eric Zuesse, or Stephen Lendman. They speak for many of us. Even Saker lives in the US. Why would he live here if Americans are as bad as you say?

The people and the government are, unfortunately, two different things. The majority of Americans voted for Al Gore, a peace candidate, but the Supreme Court overthrew our case. Bush’s second election was also rigged, according to international standards. There is of course no excuse for the second election of Obama, which was largely due to the California electorate, of which I am not a part. My own state voted for Romney.

I do not agree with what the US and EU governments are doing in the foreign policy arena any more than you do. I am an editor at Quemado Institute. Please read our website if you want to know how we feel.

Donald Trump has said repeatedly that he opposes US intervention in foreign conflicts, including Ukraine, Libya, Iraq and Syria. He believes the Middle East would be more stable if Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein were still alive. He opposes the overthrow of Assad. The one exception he makes is the same as that of Putin. Trump believes we should bomb ISIS, but in cooperation with Russia. Trump wants a strong military, just as Putin wants a strong military. I imagine you do not object to that in Putin’s case. Salon.com is not an honest news source. Perhaps you are reading too much Western media?

I am busy doing everything I can to influence US policy toward nonintervention and the promotion of world peace. It is not easy. The neocons have developed huge momentum. How many hours a day do you devote to eradicating hatred and war? If you stir up more hatred by saying unkind things folks like me, it is you who are adding to the violence in the world. Watch your karma!

At the top, the immoral elite are intellectually brilliant, but morally imbecilic. Consciously or unconsciously they are satanists in their core beliefs.

Near the top, you have dissenters such as Syria Watcher, and the individuals like the Americans he cites (Paul Craig Roberts, Ron Paul, Eric Zuesse, or Stephen Lendman) and many others, nameless, including quite a few commentators here. I would add in William F Engdahl cited by mmiriww. Engdahl is smart and moral, and many of his articles point to the loveless spiritual void in the elites whose evil causes us to convene in this vineyard.

A little lower, you have the successful professionals, entrepreneurs, entertainers (including pro-athletes) who are neither dissenters nor very serious about politics. It is so rotten that it makes them sick and they don’t partake much, except to treat it as a spectator sport. They’ll root for Trump they way they would root for The Undertaker at an equally phony sporting event called Professional Wrestling. They are material beneficiaries of the Empire, but spiritual victims of it. They stand to lose everything because of their moral cowardice.

Then you have the shrinking middle class who aren’t very educated intellectually, and live in a cultural wasteland run by the elites, with the purpose of making their slaves stupid and defenseless. From the perspective of these victims, most of whom sense organically that something has gone very, very wrong, they are so impotent to change anything that just the thought of its improbability plunges them into depression and fear.

And its all down hill from there. Some months ago I read a comment here, where someone recalled a question at a political meeting, where the aroused and troubled political neophyte wondered out loud, “How can the American people have been so stupid as to have allowed the destruction of their own republic?”

The insightful answer, from the speaker at the event: “The American people are not stupid. They are SMALL. And they are looking up at huge problems and gigantic evils that terrify them. Under these circumstances They believe that it is smart to ACT stupid!!!!!”

So, very far from being united in any positive sense, Americans are disunited, fearful, in hiding and in willful ignorance. “United We Stand!” ??? Bullshit!!!! United we stick our heads in the sand and HIDE!! Americans are in fear and descent, and in general flight from reality and I hope they have hit bottom. Fear is the opposite of Love, which in a deeper sense is spiritual ascent. It is going to take a whole lotta love to turn these moral cowards around. The process has started. Whether it is too late or not, I don’t know. All I know is that it is necessary that the process continue and accelerate.

Here is something else to go with that Americans are stupid and don’t know what they are doing.. As I have not meet any stupid American military men, After absorbing the hardies and smartest the world had to offer, they have often been far smarter than most I have met. The dumb and dumber have been few and far in-between.. And this is not just n the military industrial complex.. The smartest work in like NSA the premier department that steals everyone else’s plans and secrets.. And are some of the smartest and most educated in the world. And how it has benefitted Americans, well, the number of billionaires, then number of millionaires and the 3-5% of Americans making 250k/1mil an year.. In many cases blackmailing others to pay for those salaries..

“Some years ago I was told by a former West Point officer that the cadets of West Point who go on to become America’s future colonels, generals and military strategists, are steeped in Sun Tzu as well as in Italian Renaissance diplomat Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince, which teaches ‘the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct’,” Engdahl recalls.

Under the smokescreen of incompetent and inconsistent foreign policy in Syria, Washington war planners and policymakers are pursuing a carefully-planned strategy to ignite a war in the oil-and-gas-rich Middle East and alter the geopolitical map of the region, F. William Engdahl notes.b>

Those smarts are largely down to wealth + peace, as the US escaped the ravages of major wars. Thus they had ample leisure to develop institutional and military strengths, with a strong bias for technology +industry.

But they have not developed significant architecture, art or literature – most of the world has much richer and older civilizations.

I sometimes think its this lack of organic connection to the past that results in a semi-psychopathic willingness to destroy so much of the world’s civilizational beauty.

Just look at what has been done to Syria – for a pipeline.

The idea of opportunity in a large, sparsely-inhabited continent no doubt helped to develop the US, but the rank opportunism that characterizes its so-called ‘foreign policy’ is a destructive pathology.

Technocrats are not artists. To live in a world controlled by them would be a living death.

“Donald Trump is against US intervention in foreign conflicts” only because he prefers to start himself the conflicts, or simple aggressions, as every president before him. He will never be close to Ron Paul ever in life. Are you sure we should support him? On what basis, his zionist affiliation or his financial skills?

So Russia might use tactical nukes against turkish-saudi illegal (not approved by the UN) MILITARY onslaught in Syria.I see nothing wrong here.The USA used atomic bombs against CIVILIAN population in Japan (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) , and got away with it.

Of course, this is so. Putin has stated, the MOD has stated, deputies have stated clearly that the military doctrine and the defense of Russian troops is without doubt all about nuclear weapons. The reason tactical nuclear weapons are developed is for defense, not attack. It is a barrier against being overwhelmed.

Russia would use them in two instances, it is clear, as it pertains to Turkey.
To defend the troops in Syria, and to defeat Turkey if the Straits are blockaded and the Black Sea Fleet and Russian ships cannot get passage to the Mediterranean.

Will the use mean a war with US/NATO? Of course not.

Turkey knows that attacking Russian troops or forming an offensive that comes toward them and into Syria will presently cause a war with Russia. And he will lose those troops that attack and he will lose the war.

It is a new world that Russia has helped create. The Hegemon and its vassals and proxies no longer can operate with impunity. Russia stands in the way. The existential threats and realities are challenged by Russia head-on. And they have clearly, repeatedly stated that tactical nukes are in the toolkit.

Putin is the most reliable leader in world history. He is the most legalistic leader in modern times. He always acts within established international law. Russia has fought the highest moral fights.

If Turkey and/or Saudi leaders err, they will discover what power they unleashed on themselves.

The ship off-shore with Kaliber cruise missiles is armed with nukes. I’m betting nukes are on the land of Syria and might even be ready to fly under the wings of Russian jets.Certainly, subs are nearby with nukes.

Whatever happens, it will be over in less than an hour. Governments will fall all over the place. The Russians will have defended themselves legally, morally and superbly.

And the necon/NATO/Israel jackboot will come down on the excuse of ‘Russian agression.’

No, everything will not be OK. You’ve been paying attention too long to miss the signs. A bubble needs bursting but the zionist criminals are genuinely frightened of public reactions to a theft of wealth on a far greater scale than 2008.

this really feels like the cuban missile crisis of our generation, whichever generation that may be….each day we wait & consume as much news & opinion that we can, all else seems irrelevant in this bubble, thank you alexander, parry & saker for posting

This is far more dangerous than the Cuban missile crisis. The West seeks to unleash a series of crises/ wars on Russia. The aim is to debilitate Russia, leading (if all goes well) to internal collapse. Its the Zbignew Brzezinski Soviet/Afghan play all over again. Ukraine, Syria, Transnistria etc etc. The oil price and currency wars etc.

Its a simple strategy for the West, but one that is very difficult and complex to counter for Russia. I think Russia may well use a “simplifying” limited nuclear strike in the mideast.

I get the feeling that the crisis has passed. The MSM is not broadcasting anti Putin propaganda today, a pause in what had been a bombardment. I think Obama has decided this might tarnish his legacy and he wants it behind him. The other powers are spineless and will never act independently.

Anyway, it seems NATO wants the conflict to be in the Baltic Sea where they originally planned it. They are a one trick pony and the Baltic scenario is the only one they know.

Wonder how they will react when Syria is pacified and Iraq begins to fall into a Russian orbit.

easier to block off the Baltic perhaps as the northern side of NATO is a stronger pathologically association …easier to ship over troops equipment missiles etc…..Rus tourist trade etc,Sweden Finland and Baltic countries hysterics over the years, rus language speakers problems in Estonia etc??????

It is very clear to me because the tactical situation on the ground not only requires that, but its also part of Russian military doctrine to use tactical nukes first and early in a conflict in order to force a superior enemy (NATO) to stand down and negotiate, so to use them in the middle east against Turkey and Saudi Arabia is even easier and fits perfectly into the current situation.

It seems like mentally ill Erdogan is going to do it and he is using the bombing in Ankara as an excuse. A famous eastern european blind psychic (now dead, a woman) said that there will be a war between Russia and Turkey and that Russia will destroy and dismember Turkey (one third of the Turkish population will die and one third will flee). That sounds a bit too heavy, but we might get a “light” version of it.

Things are advancing slowly in syria, with all exits blocked and knots duly tied up by the russians. i figure the FM and the russian MoD & chiefs of staff must work together and the latter must operate with nearly zero error.
But what we feel is that in a given moment in near future, they should act on the ground with lightning speed, be it in aleppo or Deir elZor, or Racqua.
What the empire of chaos and their brussels puppets do understand instantly and in full is only the language of fait acompli.

This nuke thing is bull, Russia developed the FOAB for just this case use. It is a 45kt fuel air explosive that kills everything in a 1/2 mile radius and critically injures everything within miles..

And we already seen what those thermobarics can do.. We seen them use it to clear entire fields of mines and terrorists. A tactical nuke helps with armored vehicles. But how many tanks??? 1000? 2000? 3000? those cluster munitions work with metal objects and would take out city block sized armored offensives. So Russia wont need to make any threats. I think Russia has already demonstrated that their standard weapons can do worse damage. Tactical nukes are only good for taking out bunkers under mountains or subs or very large ships.

We seen in predator how a small tactical nuke did no damage to the gov of ca.. he just hid in a ditch. A FOAB would have made sure his lungs stuck out of all his holes.

As long as nuclear weapons exist, they ask to be used. Nobody builds such things just to display and threaten, and it’s always better to show your resolution to the other side by nuking some less important country with tactical weapons than to go straight to global war.

People, are you really cheering for use of nuclear weapons? How christian (this is an orthodox crowed). People are talking about committing mass murder in other countries. Syria is not Russian. Please don’t become animals in your hate.

animals are unable to hate. they are reflection of life on this planet like we are, but they does not have intelect to invent nukes, slaughterhouses, religious wars, all dirts which belongs exclusively to human mind and behaviour. they are almost all in row waiting for death by (sub)humans. at least we can show little respect for them by not comparing them to humans.

All generalizations are false. One exception, Sanjin; Lions and Hyenas. With no food kill to fight over and no danger to lion cubs, male lion will chase down and kill hyena matriarch out of pure hatred:

This is just hysteria. Simply put, this is simply not the way the Russians operate. They are more shrewd, cunning and sophisticated for that. Russia would leave that (Nuclear option) as a guessing game for any supposed enemy or threat. Nuclear weapons speak for themselves, quite literally!

One more this that’s more serious. There seems to be a an agenda or angle that’s being propagated on many internet discussion boards, alt media including here that imply that the Turks or Saudi A for that matter can do by themselves. The leadership of these two countries/vassals can not even go use the bathroom without their Anglo-Zionist masters permission.

And yet many want us to believe Turkey and/or Saudi will make a unilateral attack on Syria, essentially a War of aggression , on their own; but they are being restrained. What a joke.

Is this a case blatant wide-scale misinformation? Sheep turning into wolves?

Donald Trump says he would scare Pope Francis over capitalism views: ‘ISIS wants to get you’

It’s common for some to criticize Pope Francis’s wariness about capitalism, but Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump just took that to a new level, saying he’d try to “scare” the pope by telling him: “ISIS wants to get you.”
The comment came when CNN’s Chris Cuomo presented Trump with a hypothetical situation during an interview Wednesday. What if, Cuomo said, Trump met the pope, and — through a translator — the pope expressed a belief that capitalism can be “a real avenue to greed, it can be really toxic and corrupt.” How would Trump respond, Cuomo asked.
“I’d say ISIS wants to get you,” Trump said. “You know that ISIS wants to go in and take over the Vatican? You have heard that. You know, that’s a dream of theirs, to go into Italy.”
“He talks to you about capitalism, you scare the pope?” Cuomo asked.
“I’m gonna have to scare the Pope because it’s the only thing,” Trump said. “The Pope, I hope, can only be scared by God. But the truth is — you know, if you look at what’s going on — they better hope that capitalism works, because it’s the only thing we have right now. And it’s a great thing when it works properly.”

I’d like you now to also read what I’ve pasted below. This statement was put out just recently by Trump’s camp to explain his more recent remarks, the ones in the February 2016 Fox News video that began this thread:

“If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS’s ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been President because this would not have happened,” the Trump campaign said in a press release Thursday. “ISIS would have been eradicated unlike what is happening now with our all talk, no action politicians.”

Please take note of the word “when” at the beginning of the February 2016 statement. Read into it whatever you wish. But for a serious presidential contender to state with certainly how the Vatican will be attacked by an American proxy force (which is what ISIS is), unless he is elected to the office of President, sounds ominous. What does he know? That maybe plans for such an attack exist, but if he is elected president he’ll call it off? Maybe he’s letting the Pontiff know, in his own unique way, to be careful, as there are powerful forces out there now gunning for him. Who can tell with certainty? But considering the US’s history of spreading terror across the globe, terror that has spanned decades, and its use of jihadi proxies, at the very least this statement can be construed as being in bad taste.

Link the statement from August 2015 with the one from Februay 2015 and try to tell me he wasn’t issuing a direct threat to the Vatican.

We all know the Anglo-Zionists are really p—-d with Pope Francis for a number of reasons, the most serious probably being his recent meeting with the Moscow Patriarch in Cuba. If any doubts remain of my thesis, just recall Ali Agca, the attempted assassin of Pope John Paul II on May 13 1981, in Vatican
City. He was an active member of the Grey Wolves, and the Grey Wolves were an integral part of the CIA anti-Communist stay-behind program more popularly known to us as Gladio. And we all know what Gladio did, and what the Grey Wolves are now doing in Syria.

I don’t trust the Zionists. I don’t trust the US deep state. I don’t trust any President of the United States. I don’t trust any serious contender for the office of President of the United States. I was once the most confirmed anti-conspiracy theorist you could find. But world events since 9/11 have made me otherwise. So as a result I’ll retain my healthy skepticism, even if at times I am proven wrong. And this may be one of those times – but only time will tell.

Don’t be ridiculous. Donald Trump was just parrying the Pope’s unfair attack. Trump stands for US nonintervention in foreign conflicts. This is the most important saving principle for the world, since most of the world’s present crises were caused by US intervention. Please support Trump. He is the best option for a safer world.

Ridiculous maybe. But when US presidential candidates utter statements like that, the world takes notice. Personally, I have no respect for any of the candidates standing for the office of President of the United States. I know there are many views of Donald Trump and the role of his candidacy, but from what I can see, he comes across as a clown. Some commentators believe he has been put forward so as to destroy the Republican Party’s chances of election, and so allow Hillary to become president – as she is the War Party’s choice. Others even that Jeb Bush is waiting in the wings. I have no inside knowledge, as I live far from the American continent and am merely a humble working class person approaching 60 years in age – and so can only observe what I observe. If what you say is true, then maybe there is hope. But if not, then we continue heading down the path toward global war.

”Ridiculous maybe. But when US presidential candidates utter statements like that, the world takes notice….”

killory klingon has threatened more than one to obliterate iran….and every candidate of the two parties except trump has toed the aipac line,
trying
to outdo each other as to who is better at nuking uran, isis, russia, et al,
and you take trump’s rebuttal of the popes attack seriously?

trump grabs the headlines daily by his statements.
all the media can’t ignoore him like they did to ron paul.

trump is a showman and a salesman. but he is not alone.
the question is, who is backing him, what is there agenda?

Trump may be a showman, but he is also very intelligent, and I have no doubt his showmanship hides the ideas he really would implement if he ever got into the oval office. The more I think of it, the more convinced I am that he was letting the Pope know to watch himself. For lets be honest here, no POTUS is so thick that he doesn’t know how implicated the US is in the scourge of modern-day terrorism. And that goes for every presidential hopeful. Obama, the great change candidate, gave himself and by extension every future US president the power of life and death over every human on this planet. If Trump becomes president, would he order a terrorist act against someone, or institution, or country who defied him personally, or the US? The answer is self-evident. It happens all the time when someone defies, or even looks like defying the US. Will Trump be any different? I don’t believe he would. You don’t get to be the grand POTUS unless you have already sold yourself to the devil, and that goes for someone like Trump who stands a realistic chance of making it into the presidential office.

Even if his remark was offhand, or a quick retort to an attack on him, which it may have been, for this cannot be discounted, I still find it quite disturbing nonetheless.

Putin a billionaire? I think you have swallowed a bit of MSM propaganda with this statement. And equating Trump with Putin is showing a whole heap of disrespect to Putin.

The left were taken in by Obama. I stated to many people at the time that having a brown skin and smiling a lot means nothing.

And now the right have been taken in by Trump. Saying everything they want to hear is called populism, and he will disappoint his constituency the same way Obama disappointed his.

And as with Obama back then, people don’t want to listen so they have to learn the hard way. But what happens with all these disappointments is that the mass of people become disheartened and disillusioned, believing nothing works, so they turn off politics, sinking even further into their protective shells and their consumerist diversions and expensive toys. And this suits he elites just fine.

I hate to say it, but if Trump gets elected he’ll disappoint you the same way Obama disappointed his support base

To Steve: No, this is not an insult to Putin. Even Putin himself has praised Donald Trump, calling him “talented”, and adding, in reference to Trump’s statement he would like to work with Putin, “How can we not welcome this?”. Donald Trump has said on at least several occasions that he wants to work in partnership with Putin. Note that Putin’s wealth is estimated at $80 billion, though apparently most of this is held by his foundation run by his daughter. There is nothing wrong with being rich. About your case for Putin: admittedly, he perhaps the most brilliant, effective, dignified and gracious leader of modern times. Donald Trump, in contrast, is gracious and dignified only when treated fairly. See for example his South Carolina acceptance speech:

But Trump becomes rude and bellicose when dishonestly accused. He needs this trait to fight the rampant corruption in US politics: it is a strength Putin could use a little of in his battle against corruption in Russia, but it might seem awkard on his refined persona. What both men share are pragmatism and fairness. About corruption in Russia, Vladimir Suchan has written a brief, excellent, yet disheartening editorial on the subject:

In 1975 The United States threatened North Korea with “incineration” on the very first day of an attack by them against South Korea. James Schlessenger, then Secretary of Defense, said that during an address to the South Korean Congress. He did not use the word “nuclear”; but everyone knew exactly what he meant.

When the North Koreans observed the pathetic response to North Vietnam’s resumption of its invasion of South Vietnam earlier that year, they surmised -correctly, I believe- that the United States was incapable of responding any better than that in South Korea. The US Army’s 2nd Division, positioned along the principal invasion route to Seoul, was a mess. Tunnels were being dug across the peninsula intended to send regimental combat teams behind the front lines at the same time that North Korean artillery would start to fire 12,000 shells per minute for several hours.

The South Koreans were worried about what level of determination (lack thereof, actually) the United States would show in the face of this onslaught.. They got what they wanted from Schlessenger.

Almost immediately, the North Koreans backed off and ceased their preparations. Shortly after that, they began their program to develop their own nuclear weapons.

Russia’s position in Syria is similar to that of the United States in Korea. They don’t have sufficient forces in place. Nothing short of nuclear weapons could destroy a Turkish invasion of Syria before it could attain its objectives. The Russian military today is not dealing with the crippling psychological damage that the American forces were suffering in 1975. The Russian people are ready to support all out war with Turkey, making it very likely that Russia -given adequate time and willing to suffer the attendant casualties- could deliver a devastating defeat to Turkey. But tactical use of nuclear weapons would end the attack in short order; and the casualties would be much less -even for the Turks.

It’s more or less exactly like I predicted in a comment on The Saker’s most recent weekly update regarding the Russian intervention in Syria.

I predicted that Russia would use nukes on Turkish attack columns once they would have moved far enough into Syrian territory.

Threatening to use nukes before the necessity arises is of course part of the scenario.

To all the ones who think that Russia is so superior and does not act in this way: Russia is neither superior nor does it have any moral restraints of that kind.On the contrary, threatening to use nukes, and actually using them when the need arises, is the only moral thing to do given the circumstances. What is at stake is the very survival of Russia and also of Christianity.

As for more predictions, if Erdogan and the Saudi defense minister who is in charge there go ahead anyway, then Russia will actually use nukes. Then, for all we know, SA financed the Pakistani nuclear program. So don’t be surprised if SA makes use of its Pakistani option and tests a nuclear weapon in the near future.

“Confirmation that the Western powers are warning Erdogan against an invasion of Syria…”

Uhm, no. The only thing confirmed is that Obama is taking a public stance against it…probably while simultaneously privately urging Erdogan and the Saudis to go ahead.

I will re-iterate: The ENTIRE US, EU and Israeli plan for the Middle East can NOT be successful if Syria, Iran and Hizballah in Lebanon are allowed to remain intact – and Russia is allowed to succeed at enabling this.

Therefore simple logic says the US, NATO and Israel will continue to push for the dissolution of Syria’s ability to function as an effective actor in the Middle East, in particular in an Iran war.

That Russia is present is a complication, but we can not expect the Western elites to simply abandon their plans. The “crazies in the basement” still run the US and they will push the US to escalate beyond what is rational.

Obama will do what he’s told as he has all along. Clinton or the Republicans will be even worse. This is an election year and escalation of the Syria crisis would be beneficial to most of the political candidates as a means to demonstrate their “toughness” and “foreign policy experience”, consequences be damned.

Perhaps the word is not “threaten”. How about “informed” Russia “informed” Erdogan that it is ready to use nukes to defend Hmeimin. I think it is entirely likely that this would have happened. It makes a lot of sense.

Russia’s military doctrine stipulates that it would use nukes were its conventional forces to be overwhelmed. Turkey is capable of overwhelming Russia’s conventional forces in Syria. As Saker has stated before, the Russian position in Syria can not really be defended against NATO.

If Turkey were to threaten Russian forces in Syria without a powerful Russian response, this would invite NATO to support Turkey. Even if such support had been witheld at the outset of the attack. A weak Russian response in Syria would also invite NATO/Ukraine to escalate against Donbass and possibly even Crimea.

Perceived Russian weakness will invite NATO escalation in both Syria and Ukraine. THis is the key. Russia would be hard pressed to defend itself against NATO in both Syria and Ukraine. It therefore makes sense for Russia to make it absolutely clear to NATO that it is prepared to use nuclear weapons in Syria. This ensures that NATO does not start a chain of events that may lead to Russia having to use nuclear weapons close to its own borders.

Finally, would Russia actually use nukes in Syria were Hmeimin to be threatened? I believe so. Syria is a perfect use case for tactical nuclear weapons for the following reasons:

1. Such use would have (probably already has) the permission of the legitimate government.
2. It would be defensive since it would be done against an invader (Turkey).
3. It would be far from Russia’s borders.
4. It would be done to prevent the victory of the most odious groups of terrorists the world has seen in centuries.
5. NATO would be unlikely to wage nuclear war in defense of Turkey. Europe and the Anglos will stab Turkey in the back. Sorry Turks, you are not Europeans. Neither Europe nor America will sacrifice themselves for you. You are just the expendable oriental foot soldiers of the empire.
6. Such use would scare the living daylights out of NATO/Europe and force them to negotiate a multipolar world order. i.e it would probably assure global peace by forcing the Empire to back off its war on Russia.

Sadly I agree with Ngoyo’s analysis. I’d consider this about the most likely context we’ve seen for the use of nuclear weapons in the Western Hemisphere since 1962.

I would add a 7th point: By intervening with such commitment, Putin has tied his own fortunes tightly to those of his Syrian venture. Should there be a large-scale incursion, turkey’s considerable conventional forces do at least have the potential to sabotage the Russian-backed Assad campaign. There may only be one way to guarantee that doesn’t happen.

Erdogan hopefully is crazy enough to invade Syria unilaterally. If he did I expect Russia would (correctly) calculate action against an ‘invading’ Turkish force unlikely to trigger Article 5.

Oh, and the real question should be: Has Putin informed Turkey that Russia WILL react to the mere PRESENCE of Turkish troops in Syria? Logically he would have done that before even suggesting the use of tactical nukes.

After all, if Russia would not engage an invading Turkish force, then Turkey would avoid engaging Russian troops and the necessity for tactical nukes would be avoided in the first place.

This is why I believe Obama is egging Erdogan on. The US thinks Turkey can establish a “buffer zone” – and perhaps the US and NATO can establish a “no-fly zone” – without engaging Russia directly. This would put Putin between a rock and a hard place. The Russian plan to seal the border would fail and could only be countered by Russia’s willingness to escalate the situation – which would take the blame off Obama and Erdogan – at least in their eyes – and put it on Putin.

This is how Obama operates – “lead from behind” using Erdogan and deflect any blame for the consequences from himself. It’s a win-win for Obama, which is why I believe that is what he is doing – because he’s done it before consistently.

This so called Turkish buffer zone along the border is nothing but a foot in the door. On its own its quite useless for achieving regime change in Syria, which is what Turkey really wants.
Such a zone would have to shelter the terrorist rats to be effective. They would have to regroup and launch their attacks from there. This means that the Russian air force would continue to attack them. They would also be within reach of Syrian artillery.

So for such a buffer zone to make any sense, Turkey would have to suppress both the SAA and the Russians. Russia is also attacking any groups that attack the SAA, so Russia would eventually have to attack the Turkish army if it attacks the SAA.

“This means that the Russian air force would continue to attack them. They would also be within reach of Syrian artillery.”

This is precisely my point. The goal of the “buffer zone” would be declared to be a “no-combat” zone followed by a US/NATO enforced “no-fly zone” which would explicitly be declared as off-limits to the Russian and Syrian air units.

So Russia and Syria would either have to comply with those designations or risk confrontation with Turkey and then the US and NATO.

This is the POINT: to force Russia to make that decision. And once Russia decides to continue use of force in those zones, the US and NATO would declare once again that Russia is the “aggressor” – just as they have when they declare Russia is attacking so-called “moderate rebels.”

The whole point of this maneuver is to force Russia to either back down due to the threat of WWIII or force Russia to lose geopolitical support by militarily engaging Turkey and NATO. This is what I mean by putting Putin between a rock and a hard place. Putin does not want EITHER of those scenarios to occur. But he also faces defeat if backs down and he allows Turkey to keep open a corridor for ISIS and Al Qaeda against Syria. Because ISIS and Al Qaeda cannot be beaten if they continue to be supplied from Turkey and elsewhere.

This Turkish invasion of Syria is the optimum plan for Obama because he gets to screw Putin with no blame being placed on himself and he also gets to continue degrading Syria.

Russia needs to analyze this situation and declare its understanding of it and what they will do to counter it.

Would a safe zone in and of itself not just move the Turkish border southward? The safe zone could, thus, be sealed off just like the Turkish border is going to be sealed off if no Turkish/Saudi invasion will be forthcoming. So, for a safe zone to work, NATO/Turkey/SA will actually have to extend their operations beyond the safe zone, which will provide Russia/Syria/etc. with the justification for countering them. The net effect will be that the usual imperial mode of operation, which consists of provoking adversaries into attacking first, will not work.

A lot could happen between the initial invasion and the response to close the new border. It will be harder to close the new border because it will be larger than the old border. In addition, the US and NATO would use any attempt to close that border as justification for Turkey to expand it, and probably use it to justify a full-scale no-fly zone and air campaign against Syria which, again, would force Russia to have to decide whether to engage US and NATO directly.

In short, it doesn’t change the calculus much. It still becomes a major problem for Syria and Russia.

The fly in that ointment is that NATO would be in the wrong and in violation of a number of UNSC resolutions. NATO would have to be the aggressor. They would have to invade and they would have to fire first at Russian and Dyrian forces. Russia wiuld simply be defending itself.

In a conflict where you have Saudi Arabia on one side and Russia on the other, I bet the world sides with Russia. The world is wise to NATO, they are the ones who would lose geopolitical support not Russia.

It’s not that simple. First, the US and NATO can easily just brush aside any apparent illegality. They’re ALREADY illegal just by bombing inside Syria without Syrian permission. You really think Obama gives a rat’s ass about a UN Resolution or NATO’s Chapter rules?

Second, the US and NATO do not have to fire on Russia first. They can just ignore Russian planes and any ground forces and wait for Russia to decide to escalate the situation. If Russia does not, Putin and Syria lose and Turkey, the US and NATO win. If Russia escalates, Obama gets to deflect blame from himself for the escalation and continues to demonize Putin for being an “aggressor”. Putin is also forced to decide whether drawing a line in the sand in Syria directly against the US, risking WWIII, is in the real existential interests of Russia. The danger for all of us is that he might decide it is.

It’s a win-win for Obama and this is precisely why he’s behind Erdogan on the Syria invasion. Publicly he can claim he’s not, but Obama is known for lying to his allies and the public and doing the exact opposite in secret.

I am skeptical about this story for a few reasons. One, where would the nuclear weapons be detonated? If it’s on Turkish territory then NATO would have to respond, otherwise its loss of credibility would disband the alliance. Russia could also face an assault on Kaliningrad, or even St-Petersburg. If it’s on Syrian land then much of it would be irradiated, and it would harm the YPG, & even its own task force. Two, threatening does not seem to be the Russian style; but acting with full force seems to be (eg Caspian sea missile strikes.) Three, a lot of world opinion would turn against Moscow for using tactical nukes, which would undo 20+ years of successful diplomacy worldwide.

Although it would cost more in Russian blood, I believe the Russian military & its allies could ultimately prevail with a combination of long range missile strikes, use of its long range bombers, thermobaric bombs, and most importantly, superior skills of the Russian soldier.

Nuclear tipped missiles have already been used!,in Yemen,Syria,nkorea,Ukraine ,fukushima ,if you are talking of incidents like Hiroshima,Nagasaki it aint gonna happen.Nobody dares not even team chaos!Another reason is there’s no money in it,money is in the conventional arms like f22 or what ever shit hammer they can make money on!sleep tight we can wakeup tomorrow:-)

No, tactical nukes up to a yield of several hundreds of kilotons would not irradiate much of Syria. Such nukes have a blast radius of not more but a few kilometers and fallout would be manageable if not too many of them are used.

just for information….
i don’t know the specs about tactical nukes but
on christmas island in the pacific some years ago
i was 25 miles from three hydrogen air blasts of
100 megatons or more by the british.

apart from the heat flash and the forty five miles
an hour blast wave we all survived.
no fall out a the british were developing a
”clean bomb” i.e. fireball did not touch the
earth or the sea.

make of that what you will and ignore my
bulging eyes and damaged dna. three kids
with no defects except they spend money
a bit recklessly

Putin saying what he means and meaning what he says, stated publicly that he hopes nukes will not be needed to defeat the terrorists (along those lines) which I took to mean that nukes where in the kit. He also stated Erdogan was an accomplice to terrorists.
That the Sauds where so quick to jump on their camels and flee the scene by saying they would only move into Syria in a US led invasion makes it seem likely both they and Turkey where given a direct warning of the consequences of invading Syria.

TEHRAN (Fars News Agency) – The military top brass in Saudi Arabia wrote a letter to the crown prince and interior minister, Mohammed bin Nayef, to warn him against dispatching troops to Syria, saying the plan entails dire repercussions for the Kingdom.

Ten Saudi Major Generals and marshals have signed the letter which foresees definite defeat and failure for Riyadh if the Arab monarchy sends forces to Syria following its failure in the nearly-one-year-long war on Yemen, the NTHNEWS news website reported on Thursday.

Robert Parry has been widely recognized as a limited hangout propaganda asset of the CIA for several decades. He did blow the whistle on the “October Surprise” of 1980 – too late to make any difference, but enhancing his credibility as a leftist gatekeeper. Like any good sheepdog, Parry has spent most of this century barking at the heels and biting leftist sheep who wandered away from the futile controlled opposition herd into the forbidden pastures of 9/11 truth. He is a professional liar.

Yes, Robert Parry is a controlled opposition media hack. He goes against mainstream American media propaganda–but only to a point–while not fundamentally questioning the most essential issues.

For instance, Parry does not question America’s War on Terrorism as a Big Lie–and that this war is fundamentally about advancing America’s expansitionist ambitions (i.e. America’s unipolar world dominance) under the guise of fighting terrorism.

And of course Parry does not question how 9-11 was most likely an inside job organized and executed by the American military/spy institution, with help from its partners like the Israeli Mossad.

Parry has already come out and all but said MH17 was shot down by the Ukrainians, and the absence of credible non-SBU Photoshop/#Bellingcat (#Bellingcrap) evidence points to this. Just because I haven’t seen what he writes about 9/11 does not make him controlled opposition. If people are ready to believe that the Ukrainians shot down MH17 and the U.S. is backing the big lie on that false flag, then they’ll question other episodes like 9/11 too.

Has Robert Parry come out of the closet and unequivocally stated that America’s War on Terrorism is a massive lie, a deception that is world historic in nature?.

This bogus American war is merely a trojan horse for America to seize control over strategic regions of the world (containing energy resources, for instance); overthrow independent governments that oppose American imperialism; militarily encircle and threaten nations that challenge America’s unipolar world order.

This is no minor issue.

In fact, America’s Big Lie/Terror War is the defining issue of our generation and of the 21st century so far.

You would think that a supposed “investigative” journalist like Parry would address it to the utmost.

Hello Anonymous Feb 19, 7:15 pm: Thanks for the insight. I hope you do not mind, but I intend to publish your comment as an update to the Quemado Institute article on Parry. It looks as if Parry is not a source to be trusted. Oddly, Global Research, a highly respected anti-American journal, publishes Parry, as well as Russia Insider. We need to get to the bottom of this, because now Parry is saying things that are potentially very destructive to Putin. Parry must be challenged, and ostrasized if it turns out he is fabricating. It is also possible Parry’s Russian source, who is supposedly close to the Kremlin, is anti-Putin, as many subversives in Moscow are, and that the source is using Parry for pro-West propaganda purposes.

“Since Turkey is a member of NATO, any such conflict could quickly escalate into a full-scale nuclear confrontation.”

For one, if Turkey invades Syria, they are unable to beg for article 5 to get NATO help, as they are the agressor. But let´s assume they do. Who will follow this call? The US? Very unlikely. Europe? Even though Merkel seems to be on his side (makes me wonder why…) most Europe countries hate that man with a passion. It´s an open secret that he is deeply involved in the refugee flood and is trying to blackmail the EU. I´m pretty sure most leaders would be happy if someone finally shuts him down.

So no, i call bullshit on this one and the Saudis are a non factor. They can´t even win in Yemen and just yesterday a letter from the military staff was leaked that shows that there is a pushback against such a decision. Meaning, if they decide this, they might see the long awaited revolution coming for them, which would end their involvement very quickly.

Bourgeois legality is a silly joke, now more than ever before. Just as NATO can wage wars of aggression at the drop of a hat, the survival instincts of the financial parasites in charge and the more mentally stable among their hangers-on mean that whatever preposterous “statutes” and “articles” they have at their disposal will be plainly and bluntly ignored if and when Russia puts a NATO subject such as Turkey in her place by force.

During the Falklands War a British SSBN was reportedly ready to launch a strike on Buenos Aires should matters get too advanced. I have no doubt Thatcher had that contingency covered. It seems reasonable to warn the Turks. The great disaster of British policy in 1914 was that the secret agreements between Britain and France were never made known to Germany until after its forces had crossed the Belgian frontier

Reading the article and the comments, I was initially inclined to view the threat of nukes of a bit of exaggeration, but this plus the fact that I trust Mercouris, makes me wonder if there might not be something to this. I’m anxious to see what the Saker has to say.

Russia considers Syria in military terms as much a part of the Russian federation as Siberia, Tatarstan, Karelia or Moscow i.e. any attack on those regions of Russia would lead to immediate nuclear retaliation.

2. Russia has torn up the Kars treaty and has amassed troops inside Armenia on its border with Turkey.

3. In addition to the Russian warning to Turkey to behave, Russia has also warned Saudi Arabia to behave as they too run the risk of a Russian invasion.

– The US invaded Iraq
– The US invaded Afghanistan

Russia can do the same with Saudi Arabia using its own quasi-legal/moral pretext that Saudi is a harbourer of terrorism.

A few thousand elite Russian marines and airborne troops spearheading an Iraqi/Iranian Shia invasion army can overrun the pathetic Saudi military easily.

4. Some may regard everything I say as fantastic and too extreme, but everything I said has basis and can be substantiated with facts.

Russia regards the war in Syria as a do or die affair, if Syria falls then Iran will be next and after that Russia and China.

The Russo-Chinese-Iranian axis agreed a few years back that Syria would be their last and ultimate stand come what may, this was after the NATO sponsored destruction of Libya.

*** What will happen? ***

a: Turkey will not invade Syria and the Syrians will win the war and mop up the remaining rebel-held towns and areas.

b: Russia will station a permanent and sizeable military presence in Syria to deter Turkish/NATO aggression and the current S-400 air defence systems will remain there permanently whilst Russia itself continues to develop more advanced and sophisticated upgrades.

c: China will have its base in Djibouti and be more robust in patrolling the red sea, the gulf and the eastern Mediterranean, the dragon will make the American eagle feel its presence. Chinese presence in the middle east is also a factor restraining the US and making it feel uncomfortable.

d: Erdogan (a US asset) will either be disposed of if he is no longer required, or still maintained in power by the US (which ultimately rules Turkey and all of the different Turkish factions be it the Gulenists, the Greywolves, the army etc, all of whom are run by the US and promote the US agenda) as part of their long term program of the “clash of civilizations”, with Turkey’s assigned role as the “leader” of the Islamic world and promoting pan-Islamism and pan-Turkism to destabilize Russia and China.

In other words to do what they have done in Syria where they used both Wahabis and pan-Turkists to destabilize Syria.

Anyway Russian sealing of Syria and its humiliation of the Turks has destroyed neo-Ottomanism, as if the neo-Ottoman AKP Turks cannot even create satellite zones in northern Syria and Iraq as per their “misak i milli” (to simplify, greater Turkey) agenda then there is not much they can do in places further away than their backyard.

e. Iran will continue to expand its economy and the use of the Euro for petro-trade thus accelerating de-dollarization.

f: The west will continue sanctions against Russia for another 2 or more years and then eventually decide its not worth it as it is hurting them more than it is hurting Russia which considers itself de facto at war (Russia lost over 20 milliion people in WW2 and not being able to buy a few Iphones is not something that will scare the bear).

Eventually Ukraine will return to the Russian orbit.

g: The EU will either collapse fully or remain in existence but discredited and not taken seriously with nation-states and their individualistic agendas taking priority. Greece may leave the Euro.

Marie Louise v. Franz, scholar of Carl Jung, added to all political information de jour the question: “And what happened to the soul?”

To enable us to attend not only the political but also the psychic drama of these days I dare to present again my brief view into the astrology of Erdogan’s unconscious drives and motives, which was firstly in the comments to the last cross talk:

there are two main things that are driving humans to do “something”. fear and hunger. in Syria, Turkey, US and allies they do not have enough fear and they will push own agend everywhere by any means like spilled water. they will find way to acquire goals. unless… Russia is cornered and have to cut sharp with ultimate weapon. nukes. just word -nuke- is enough frightening. even for politicians.

US, France say Russia’s draft resolution on Syrian sovereignty has ‘no future’
A Russian draft resolution condemning any plans for foreign military intervention and warning against violations of Syrian sovereignty has been rejected by the US and French ambassadors, as having ‘no future’ ahead of a UN Security Council meeting.

The Moscow-proposed draft calls on all states to avoid “provocative rhetoric and inflammatory statements” that could further incite foreign interference in Syria’s internal affairs, instead of promoting a political settlement to the conflict.

However, the US and French ambassadors to the UN both said that the Russian draft resolution had no future ahead of the closed-door session, Reuters reported. France’s Francois Delattre also criticized Russia as a contributor to a “dangerous military escalation that could easily get out of control,” according to AFP.

Hollande wants to avoid a second(or third)false flag attack in Paris….and once again returned to his master for protection.

Putin threatening nuclear weapons is also challenged in an article, “The Syria Question: Would Moscow Use Tactical Nukes Against a Turkish-Saudi Invasion?” The author says, “Parry suggests that Vladimir Putin has threatened to use tactical’ nuclear weapons in the event it becomes necessary to protect the 20,000 Russian troops in Syria from Turkish-Saudi aggression. To my mind, this makes little sense. Putin is fully aware that nuclear weapons cannot be used for ‘tactical’ purposes, given the risk of escalation into a broader conflagration. . . . Putin is far too cautious to consider the deployment of nuclear weapons. Were he willing to ignite a world war, he would have defended Donbass with Russian forces. … So what is the truth about Parry’s assertion? Is this anti-Russian propaganda, or a truthful warning that Putin too has gone mad?”

The article goes on to present Parry’s full commentary. Parry seems right on a lot of details. How could he be so wrong about Putin? Really a strange and incongruous message.

It is doubtful that Russia didn’t send troops into the Donbass due to a fear of world war. So how could the writer of that get it so wrong? Russia was concerned with PR and sanctions and the thinking of the masses of Ukrainians. They wanted to keep the meme of a Ukrainian civil war.

Perhaps a question is what Russia did during the Georgian war. Some say Russia threatened NATO and NATO backed down and returned to base. Is that true? In the case of Syria, Russian forces are far more exposed, along with NATO and Israel being a lot closer to come once Russia got weakened. So Russia can’t afford to lose their ships or the base in Lattakia first.

As you say, if the Russian forces are exposed in Syria, should they trust that the zionists will not use nuclear weapons to annihilate them? Isn’t it too risky? If the zionists use nuclear weapons against Russia, this would be the end of Russia, right? And the end of the dream of a fairer world…

From the linked article…
Parry suggests that Vladimir Putin has threatened to use “tactical” nuclear weapons in the event it becomes necessary to protect the 20,000 Russian troops in Syria from Turkish-Saudi aggression.

20,000?

How could Parry be so wrong about Putin? If you can show the 20,000 Russian troops in Syria I’ll consider the garbage article you linked to.

Peter AU; You may well be right. I have come to doubt Parry myself. He states the figure 20,000 Russian troops. Maybe Parry is just an anti-Russian propagandist. It seems odd that Global Research, a highly respected anti-American journal, regularly published him, not to mention Russia Insider. What is the real story on Parry?

If Russia did threaten Turkey as alleged by Parry and Mercouris, the implications thereof for the Nazi American Terror Organization become pretty awful. Sure, constituting the very core of the armed wing of global Oligarchic fascism is wonderful as long as you can be sure of only weak, defenseless targets and adversaries. Massive, cowardly violence accompanied by bluff and bluster works in these circumstances.

The significance of the alleged threat made by Russia is that it instantly calls the bluff of the entire Zionazi self-styled “International Community”. Indeed, to deluded Western supremacists aforesaid “community” of arrogant thieves and liars amounts to proof positive of Western untouchability and invincibility. Such chauvinistic notions and imaginations will get shattered very badly once it becomes clear that Russia can threaten and — most likely — also attack a NATO member state unpunished (apart from very angry Zionazi noises in the MSM, of course).

In this light, it isn’t just Russia’s leadership that should be recognized for its achievements internationally; Turkey’s leadership helps quite a bit as well, albeit inadvertently so.

Russia never threat anybody.They attack or counter-attack by surprise.But any sane and a bit clever military officer does not need to hear any kind of threat by Russia they can easily by themselves find out what the Russian answer could be.

Absolutely; Turkey would not do anything without US approval.
Obama has asked the SAA and the Kurds to refrain from ‘upsetting Turks’ (RT)… This is not good – the US is defying Russia even further. Have the Anglo-zionists totally lost their minds?
Time to negotiate a peace treaty (as Russia has already suggested in its diplomatic missions) is now; otherwise, there will be a big, bloody, painful war, and nobody will win – this should be clearly expressed if the Anglo-zionists are too stupid to understand: NOBODY will win!
This is getting worse by the hour… Probably, Russia has not threatened Turkey – the Anglo-zionists still don’t see the danger of what they are doing…

I hope the Saker is right, with all my strength. It’ more dignified Russia be silent, waiting for Putin will nuke Erdogan’s troops when they will have been invading Syria. By the way, I like a very well cooked turkey, crispy skin!

The way Russia has won wars so far is to annihilate the enemy on own soil. Putin told the Turks weeks ago, he will make Syria a second Stalingrad. So, Russia will wait for Turks and Saudis to come to Syrian land, and they won’t make their way home. Russians love cauldrons.

Threat is one matter – maybe yes, maybe no – but Ivan Policy for use of nukes is public and anybody can look it up. Last time I looked the Policy was consistent with the use described above. The Russians simply will not abide a material and significant defeat of their military, period, not without nukes as a sort of last resort, though, of course nobody knows where the mushroom-cloud might lead – so rather than a last resort it might be a “final resort” or the beginning of global suicide… Brother Erdo is on pretty shaky ground…

My 2 cents? The story’s true… Some people are nutty and simply have to be reminded about reality. Erdo’s one…and maybe his generals are being persuaded to “help” the Sultan…who knows? Maybe a parade in Dallas… Or Costa Rica, maybe condo in Miami…

If Russia attacks Turkey, it would be suicide for Putin. Turkey is a NATO member, and such an attack on one NATO member is considered an attack on all NATO members; therefore, the other NATO members are obligated to to respond in defense of the attacked member country.

The last thing Putin wants is the full nuclear might of the United States on Russia; because there would be NO winners in a nuclear war!

Ivan attacks nobody – almost never happens. But of course Ivan will defend his people in Russ and in Syria and anywhere else. W1 began, in part, with Ivan defending his Serbian brothers, because it was clear to Czar that he would be deposed if he did not defend Serbia…thus does custom bind us, the living, eh?

NATO Art 5 seems to say that the balloon goes up by trip-wire, but the ratification process – if you read the history – makes it clear that Art 5 simply asks that member states respond according to their respective laws and customs, ie the matter is for each state a mater for deliberation. There’s nothing “automatic” (suicidal) about Art 5 except the oft-repeated false claims…

Some may profit from reading what Dean Acheson wrote about NATO Art 5.

If brother Erdo goes ahead NATO will probably allow him to be defeated, similarly, he may no longer be a NATO “asset” now that he’s gone nutty – and therefore he may well be “cast adrift among wolves”, so to speak. Pity how the mighty fall…

Anyway I propose that people study the provenance and history – the real history not what people say now, but what they said then – of the NATO treaty.

It would be better for the Turkish people if Erdogan fell and a more decent politician replaced him, one that could preserve some dignity for the people – I believe that not all the Turkish people are to be blamed for Erdogan’s greed and stupidity.

This current situation is going to boil over beginning in two weeks and well into March, 2016. Turkey will invade with ground troops supported by air cover. U.S./NATO will not engage in Syria, instead it will use Erdogan’s insanity as a diversion and push Poroshenko to attack Crimea. Poroshenko stated just last month the return of Crimea is his primary objective (see: http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/01/poroshenko-will-reclaim-donbass-crimea.html). He didn’t say Donbass, he emphatically spoke of Crimea. Granted, it may have been a speech for political consumption however it may be his way of laying the foundation for doing it militarily.

I don’t know where the Ukrainian military is currently deployed nor what the current troop strength of the Russian armed forces is on the peninsula. But the northern tip of Crimea at the Perekop Isthmus is a defensive vulnerability subject to attack as history has shown when the Germans and the Romanians took control over it during World War II. Ukrainian ground forces could pour in from that position in great numbers if done quickly. The U.S./NATO will move some assets of its amphibious fleet into the Black Sea a few miles from the southern tip of Crimea between Sevastopol and Yalta. They won’t take any overt action but wait to see if the Ukrainian military makes any substantial progress on the peninsula. If they do, U.S. Marine Expeditionary Forces will deploy and land at Yalta. It could create a bottleneck for the Crimean militias and the Russians, especially if the U.S. Marines landed in the south. I see this as a possible strategy U.S./NATO may have devised to keep the Russians’ focused on two fronts: Syria and Crimea. If Poroshenko fails, the U.S./NATO will withdraw away from Crimea.

A two-prong front will knock Russia on its heels however it will be temporary. Russia will respond with a massive counterattack using TU-160 heavy bombers escorted by fighter aircraft and shielded by the S-300/400 surface to air missile batteries. Cruise missiles will also launch from the Mediterranean fleet protected by Russian submarines. The Turkish army in Syria will be obliterated and what remains will retreat back behind its borders. If the Marines do land at Yalta it will be like the Bay of Pigs, Cuba and they will be captured or killed.

I know that Russia has floated the idea they would use NSNW (“non-strategic nuclear weapons”) given particular battlefield scenarios but my gut tells me they will not use them in Syria for two reasons. One, the Russians have the conventional destructive power via air and missile bombardment to destroy the Turkish invasion. Second, President Putin does not what to set a precedent as he is well aware of the political backlash that would be forthcoming from the EU and U.S./NATO.

Again, this is just my layman opinion and frankly I would be very happy if I am completely wrong on my entire commentary regarding this matter.

War on Russia? Doubt it. I read this type of issue as an inventory storage problem for an military industrial machine that is in over supply mode — it’s either stop the machine (and suffer all the flow of $ to the war mongers and their voting workers across all states) or find somewhere to park/hide it (or a war to destroy it).

The United States has rejected Turkey’s claims that US weapons had ended up in the hands of Daesh Takfiri terrorists, the Kurdish fighters of the People’s Protection Units (YPG) and the Democratic Union Party (PYD) based in Syria.

On Friday, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he had told President Barack Obama last month that “the US was supplying weapons. Three plane loads arrived, half of them ended up in the hands of Daesh, and half of them in the hands of the PYD/YPG.”

I think it’s nice that Putin is basically giving Turkey and Saudi Arabia an invitation to invade by basically telling them that Russia will hunker down in its bases and avoid any conflict with the invading forces. It may, possibly, complain to the UN security council, though Churkin seems to think Assad should simmer down while the Turks and Saudis dismember his country.

The program is not perfect. No military program is. But here is the bottom line: It works. I think it fair to say that the targeted killing program has been the most precise and effective application of firepower in the history of armed conflict. It disrupted terrorist plots and reduced the original Qaeda organization along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border to a shell of its former self. And that was well before Osama bin Laden was killed in 2011.

Considering the seriousness of the issue, we haven’t seen much of a discussion of the scenarios. What if Turkey sends a lot of jets from a NATO base while attacking the area near Turkey’s supposed “humanitarian zone”? Turkey and NATO want a camel’s nose inside the Syrian tent. How many planes can the S300s take down? Turkey might announce it is trying to save refugees and fight IS. After Russia shoots down a plane or ten, Turkey would beg NATO for help and sink some Russian ships and try to destroy Russia’s Lattakia base.

If Russia were to back down on a partial Turkish invasion, it would be a big PR victory for Erdoghan and encourage NATO and friends to try more escalation.

Turkey, NATO, and their friends have so much firepower in that region that wonders if Russia could really avoid nukes. The bigger question is whether the Turkish army is willing to commit suicide.

Another scenario might be expelling a bunch of Kurds and then try to establish a safe place for them, protected, of course, by the very same Turkish army that drove out of their homes.

A limited ground incursion accompanied by an unlimited air incursion appears to be one of the most likely scenarios. In this way the Turks would want to forestall a nuclear retaliation against the ground incursion while neutralizing the Russian air detachment. Everything would take place under humanitarian pretexts, of course. A question in connection with that is why it has not already happened, for instance, before the S-400s (not S-300s) were brought to Syria. All the required assets were already in place. On the other hand, the SAA and its allies had not advanced as much at that time as it has now, so the perception on the part of NATO/Turkey/SA may have changed. Or it may be the case that the combination of Su-30s, Su-35s, S-400s, Pantsirs and assorted electronic jamming systems really is quite effective against F-16s and F-15s that are directed by AWACS airplanes. If we assume that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, then the prospect of significant numbers of F-16s and F-15s being shot down might already be enough to deter NATO because much of its reputation over the last decades has rested on the invulnerability of the air systems that it fields. The real deterrence against the limited ground/unlimited air scenario, however, might lie in a Russian willingness to attack targets on Turkish territory in retaliation. The NATO mutual assistance clause does not kick in automatically but leaves open the possibility to opt out if an attack has been provoked. Russia would make precisely this point and, at the same time, it would have to communicate to NATO and the Western polity a credible willingness of going to World War III if NATO did assist Turkey. The Russian people might not really want to follow its leadership into war, but the cuddled and hedonistic Western populations can be relied upon by their leaderships to an even lesser degree.

Maybe they did not expect the Russians/Syrians/etc. to be as successful as the

If SA acquires nuclear weapons from Pakistan, then the question is what delivery systems it might be able to use and how effective Russian defenses would be against them. SA has Western-made fighter airplanes, chiefly Tornados and F-15s, and could probably acquire Pakistani-made missiles. These are the kinds of things Russian defenses can shoot down.
US-made cruise missiles might have better chances, although the question would be whether Saudi/Pakistani-made nuclear warheads are small enough to fit on them. Israeli-made warheads certainly are but here the question would be whether the Zio-Nazis already are so desperate as to go down that particular route. For the time being, a Saudi nuclear force would be much smaller and less capable than the Russian one in any case.

SA going nuclear would immediately lead to Iran doing the same. Would SA and its Anglo-Zionist backers want that to avoid disaster in Syria?

These are many questions, the situation seems to be getting more complicated and unpredictable by the day. Many things can go wrong, eventually something will.

The usa obviously would obstruct, being zionazi, inc’s #1 suka. The zio-euro colonies are continuing to play political “musical chairs” on whose turn it will be to drop their trowsers for israel. Amazing how often germany and france draw the short straw in these determinations…

so now Syria has every right to protect its sovereignty by any means, legally with Rus and anyone else it has treatises, contracts with……clearly UNSC parties that voted against don’t believe in international law or interested in seeing peace in Syria, their interest is only token and seemingly has set the scene for any other country to abuse Syia tacitly, cos they won’t object to it or hoping for it or when it has happened it will much too late…..-the french seem particularly against Syria……Rus knows UNSC is seriously flawed and politics of international interventionists into instigating and supporting the rebellion by the opposition is of more value to the usual suspects….Un won’t be interested in holding illegal protagonists to account surely………..

Sitemap

All the original content published on this blog is licensed by Saker Analytics, LLC under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0). For permission to re-publish or otherwise use non-original or non-licensed content, please consult the respective source of the content.